PT103.S1.Q25 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5

PASSAGE 2

Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

In response to Sasha’s claim that handwriting analysis should be banned in court, Gregory concludes handwriting analysis will be a legitimate courtroom tool once a licensing board is established. As evidence, Gregory suggests that a licensing board would set professional standards and thus deter irresponsible analysts from making exaggerated claims.

Gregory counters the position held by Sasha. He does this by defending the use of handwriting analysts in limited instances where that handwriting analyst is licensed. In Gregory’s view, this would solve the problem both he and Sasha agree occurs when handwriting analysis is used in court.

Gregory does not ignore the evidence introduced by Sasha. In fact, Gregory agrees with Sasha that the current use of handwriting analysis is problematic.

The principle Gregory defends is the acceptable use of handwriting analysis as a courtroom tool. The restricted class is those handwriting analysts that are licensed under a licensing board.

There is no specific evidence presented in either Gregory or Sasha’s argument. Both Gregory and Sasha discuss the use of handwriting analysis on a general, theoretical level.

Gregory does not identify a self-contradictory statement. Instead, he acknowledges the problem Sasha identified and proposed a potential solution.

Sasha’s argument does not manifest the characteristics it condemns. Sasha condemns handwriting analysis for habitually exaggerated claims. Her solution to this is to ban handwriting analysis in its entirety.

PrepTest 103 - Section 1 - Question 25

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action